Dreamy Jazz (talk·contribs) – It is my great pleasure to nominate Dreamy Jazz for adminship. Dreamy Jazz has had an account for almost 4 years, has solid editing experience (slightly edited 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)), and has shown proficiency in many areas. One GA (and another GA nomination), two DYKs, and almost 20 articles created show a commitment to significant content creation. On the maintenance side, Dreamy Jazz puts in yeoman's work in many areas. I've never declined any speedy deletion tags or UAA reports from Dreamy Jazz, his AFC work is excellent, and all the NACs at AfD are spot-on in assessing the discussion. In addition, all his contributions to the noticeboards are quite helpful and, in a sometimes drama-filled environment, he stays as calm and uncontentious as possible. Finally, Dreamy Jazz knows the way around our more technical backroom areas, and admins willing to do the technical work to keep things running smoothly are a much-needed commodity. When one puts together all of that in a user, we have ourselves an optimal candidate for adminship. Dreamy Jazz will be a fine addition to the admin corps. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination
There once was an editor called Dreamy Jazz, whose work I thought was in their own class,
And I left it at that till one day, I chanced upon his contributions at UAA,
That I was pleasantly surprised is an understatement; specially more, when I saw his CSDs needed no further treatment,
Then one day, I stopped by at The Blade of Northern Lights, and asked him, "My hero, where have been your sights?"
"Here is an editor since 2015, with 55,000 contributions pristine,"
CSDs, UAA, he's a master, but he's also a ~90% in AfDs, although not as faster,"
Why shouldn't we nominate him for an RfA, and give the community one more Man Friday?"
The Blade got interested, and spoke, "Girl, what editing does he know?"
"A GA, 2 DYKs, you know it, something you may want to show"
But when you do Blade, tell them that he's not here to compete on the bits;
Or block editors, delete pages, just because he's not afraid of crits;"
He's here because he really loves to contribute; if we say yes today, it'll be Wikipedia's happy retribute"
Of course, if we say no, the chap will continue editing, but I think getting him up for the RfA, would truly be fitting"
So here I am my friends, with my co-nomination; placing Dreamy for your re-examination,
Do be gentle as I always say, with your review, as significant as it be may,
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thanks to both my nominators for their kind words and nominations. I have never edited for pay and will never edit for pay. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work administratively in the areas which I have been most active, although over time I will expand to other areas.
My main administrative focus would be on dealing with CSD nominations (especially spam and copyvios), history redaction of copyrighted material and reports at UAA. I have experience in UAA, CSD and requesting copyright redaction through new page patrolling and reviewing articles for creation submissions.
I would like to also deal with edit requests for fully protected pages, extending my previous work on responding to edit requests on template-protected pages.
I have reported users for sockpuppetry at the sockpuppets investigation page, and would like to help in a patrolling administrator capacity. SPI is a delicate area, where prior experience is enormously helpful, so I would learn from more experienced administrators first.
In the future I would like to help at the requests for page protection noticeboard, an area which I have been less involved in, but is something which interests me.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my best contributions are to the article Morpeth, Northumberland. I improved the article, nominated it for Good Article status and got a hook about the town on Did You Know. I was able to expand my knowledge on article writing, which has helped me to review submissions at articles for creation, and also enjoyed the process.
Although I write articles myself, I enjoy reviewing and publishing articles written by others and feel my work reviewing submissions at articles for creation are some of my best contributions. Lastly, my work dealing with spam is something I think has benefited the project.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Whenever conflicts arise, I try to keep calm and relaxed, as I believe that getting angry or too stressed only makes the situation worse. One dispute I will mention is when I was improving the Notre-Dame de Paris fire article on the day of the fire. There was an editor which kept on adding a unsourced section, and I reverted them. After a few reverts, I went to the talk page to try to discuss the situation to resolve it. I feel that I remained calm throughout the dispute.
If anything makes me too stressed and/or angry, I will take a short break and come back in the right frame of mind.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
4. What areas of the English Wikipedia do you feel you have the least experience in?
A: I feel that I am least experienced in the file namespace (including images). Although I have uploaded some images of album covers under fair use, I am less experienced with the other fair use rationales, as well as the licenses which allow Wikipedia / Commons to host the files without needing fair use.
5. Why did you request a block on March 2019?
A: I requested a block in March 2019 as I needed to focus on real life. This was mainly due to upcoming exams, but there were other personal issues which meant I was going to need to retire. The reason I requested an unblock 10 days later was that the block didn’t help me focus on the exams and the personal issues had subsided.
6. As an editor with experience in the Portals namespace, could you give your position as to the level of inclusion/existence there should be, and why?
A: I am neutral currently on whether portals should exist; however, I do feel that if portals do exist then only portals with a large enough article bases should exist. This is so that every portal can be a showcase of Wikipedia’s best content. Portals without a large enough article base are prone to not having lots of interesting content. I would argue that lack of interesting content would not encourage viewers to click through to an article, and for viewers not to click through in my eyes means the portal has failed to keep the viewer interested (so not met it purpose in my opinion).
7. Do you anticipate the issues that led to your brief retirement in late March this year to recur?
A: No. The exams which I took are now over and the personal issues as mentioned in the answer to question 2 have now gone.
8. Why did you feel the need to request to be blocked during your retirement instead of merely ceasing editing?
A: I wanted to ensure that I focused on real life. I had tried the Wikibreak enforcer script before, but it had not worked well for me. I thought that the idea of being blocked would help me focus on real life.
9. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
A: Unless the school website has released the text under a license compatible with Wikipedia, then G12 would apply because the entire page is a copyright violation. However, other criteria may also apply. For example, if the copied and pasted text is also promotional, G11 would apply. Deleting under multiple criteria, when they apply, would ensure that no time was wasted in seeking copyright permission if the page would then just be redeleted under a different criteria.
None of the article (except A10 under the right, very specific, circumstances), category, redirect, user page, template, portal and exceptional circumstance speedy deletion criteria could apply. G14, G13, G8, G6, G3 and G2 also cannot apply. G1 is likely to never apply, as the school presumably wouldn’t write incoherent text or gibberish on their website. G7 could apply if the user realised their mistake and asked for it to be deleted by blanking or otherwise (as long as it was requested in good faith and they were the only substantial contributor), but this would be rare. G10 is very unlikely to apply, as the school is unlikely to have written something which constitutes an attack page. G9 can only be used by the Wikimedia Foundation, but could on the very rare chance still apply if the Wikimedia Foundation decides to delete the page.
A: The username under the username policy is a violation, as it both implies shared use and unambiguously represents a name of the company, in this case Bomis. This particular account was treated like an IP address in 2001, as domain names were treated like IP addresses back then when editing anonymously. The username was appropriate when the edits were being made, but is no longer appropriate. Furthermore, according to the username policy these accounts are usually now blocked on sight.
11. For each level of vandalism warning template 1–4, could you describe some editing behaviors that would prompt you to place such a warning on someone's talk page?
A: Unless the history of abuse is large or the IP is known to be static, I would not take into account warnings which are older than a few weeks, as IPs change.
Level 1: One edit of vandalism like edits, which could be just an accidental saving of an edit.
Level 2: A second edit of vandalism like edits after level 1 warning, or one vandalism edit which is clearly vandalism and I can’t assume good faith
Level 3: Third vandalism like edit performed recently after level 2 warning, or where the user has a minor history of vandalism
Level 4: Fourth vandalism like edit performed recently after level 3 warning, where the vandalism has been happening continuously and/or excessively, or where the user has a long history of vandalism (although I might start on the previous level unless the vandalism is obvious).
12. A user is currently the subject of a conduct discussion at WP:ANI. Due to the various accusations against him, he is very angry and vehement in his responses. Under which conditions can he be blocked for reasons relating to his high emotions, if any at all?
A: I refer to policy to answer this question, as dealing with incivility is something I have done less of. If he makes a comment towards editor(s) which is severely incivil, for example extreme profanity, threats or extreme verbal abuse, then he can be blocked for that one comment. Multiple comments which are personal attacks or harassment against editor(s) in the discussion could lead to a block, especially if he had been warned against doing so. Also, if he has any sanctions against him about how he discusses with others and if he breaks them in the discussion, he could be blocked. However, a simple anger needs to be guided and not sanctioned.
13. You made almost no edits in August through September of this year. Could you explain?
A: My editing levels dropped in August to September this year as I was preparing to leave for university and also adjusting to university life when I arrived. I was still checking my watchlist and talk page every so often, as well as making the occasional edits.
14. Under what circumstances would you resign the mop, either temporarily or permanently?
A: I would resign it permanently if I lost the trust of the community, as the role of an administrator is a servant to the community and without their trust you cannot fully serve them. I don’t see a reason why I would resign the tools temporarily.
I think the main reason my userspace edits are so high, is down to my CSD log and the userpage which I used to mark unused portal subpages for deletion (now moved to a subpage of another user). For deleted contributions, I have tagged a good number of userpages for deletion under U5. Some portals were userfied and my edits to them moved with them to userspace.
I was involved in portals, including tagging unused subpages for deletion. To do this I would place notices on the top of each page up for deletion. I helped in the portal namespace generally for a while too.
A: As far as I am aware I have only removed log entries when I reverted my addition almost immediately, the number of removals is relatively small, and there have been none since June. I felt at the time that if I had self-reverted my CSD nomination, because I mis-clicked or changed my mind without someone reviewing it, that I hadn’t then nominated it. I have changed my mind on this, and have readded all the removed entries to my CSD log so it is accurate.
17. A series of articles, comprising annual articles of the typical low quality "reality TV" genre is nominated for deletion. The articles are start class, lacking high quality sources but appear to fall within WP:GNG. What is the POLICY-based decision on such a nomination?
A: If the sources on a particular year are only routine, then the article could only cover (and sources could only support) routine information and so the year would not have any enduring value or noteworthiness. This means that the year does not merit its own article as Wikipedia is not a newspaper (specifically articles should not be news reports), so the decision would be to delete. If a particular year has more than routine coverage, then it should be kept.
18. BLPs are very important to "get right". In March 2018 you edited Matt McGinn (born 1978) to clean it up. With the experience you've gained in the last 18 months, what additional edits might you have made from the version you published here, if any?
Support, excellent choice for admin, no issues that I'm aware of. creffett (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, despite the lack of dirty limericks from your co-nom, per Blades and the poetic Lourdes. I read your ORCP at the time when you made it 13 months ago and you've nicely handled the points that got raised. As a very minor note, they have one of the more interesting global rights I've ever seen. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Almost any editor who helps or has helped with discussion backlogs, such as the nominee has with WP:RM in the past, is good in my book. This editor meets that bill for me. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...And regarding the self-requested indef block. Everyone on here takes breaks, and some choose to advertise their breaks more than others ... so I'm not seeing how it is a grounds for opposition and stand by my support. Steel1943 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have encountered this user many a time in AfD / AfC, and have never had a negative interaction with them. I only see good work put out by this user, and I do not believe I will have problems. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid candidate, does good work. ST47 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I had known that this was happening, I might have offered to co-nominate. I am happy to see Dreamy Jazz running and wish them the best! Clear net positive (at the very least) and has clue. --TheSandDoctorTalk 03:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't see why not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. W00t! Good user that I am glad is running. Only ever had positive experiences with Dreamy Jazz! –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 05:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. looks like a valuable user with enough experience to step up. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good answers, trust the nom, and the only argument the opposes are making is flat-out ridiculous. The candidate has 12k edits this year and 2k in the last two months; this is more than sufficient experience for the mop. The self-requested block to try and focus on off-wiki work is totally understandable. If anything, it's a sign of the candidate's maturity and clue. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support - I'm delighted to see this RfA, which is long overdue. If I knew this was coming, I would have co-nommed, and I've never nominated anyone for anything before. We will be nothing short of fortunate to have Dreamy Jazz serving as an admin. ~Swarm~{sting} 07:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support a worthy candidate. The contributions seems good to me. Anyone who sees a problem in the month count or edit count should read this excellent reply by Tony. [1] and [2]--DBigXrayᗙ 07:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns, not a jerk, has clue, can write articles. Opposing because the candidate has only created 20 articles despite improving another to GA is insane - most of the real work on the project is improving existing content. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 08:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The candidate is very impressive. Capt. Milokan (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good candidate - experience and temperment. I have given up many things/distractions in order to improve exam focus, only to re-start them again a few days later realising that those things/distractions were also important to helping me de-pressure during the stress. Britishfinance (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Strong candidate with a long period of service. With regard to the four opposing, I have no problem with candidates being offline for a few months, or asking for their name to be popped through special:block. These developments are actually everyday practice and are immaterial to this RfA. AGK ■ 11:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I am seeing support from admins I like to see supporting a candidate, I'm a tad concerned about doctoring logs as while practiced you'd be surprised what people can see at times ... I'm voting a tad early in this and if something serious comes up I might have to revisit but touch wood I don't. In terms of break/reset/re-engage and RL then so be it and others with the MOP team can cover.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: good chance this person will be a net positive Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As AGK says, self-requested blocks aren't a big deal, I've requested them, Wikipedia can be addictive and we're all human. Yes, I'm not running for adminship (because that would be snowballed really quickly) but you get the point. I've come across DJ at requested moves before and their closures, relists and votes there give me confidence in their ability to determine consensus, understand policy and competently implement it. SITH(talk) 11:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on balance. Deb (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm seeing a very solid candidate, and I'm not concerned by the oppose reasons. Besides, how many candidates get a nomination in song? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Need more admins. The concerns raised aren't dealbreakers to me. Haukur (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to be a good candidate. Chandan Guha (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support With no qualms about the self-requested block. Real life happens, and that was a way to focus on real life. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support lots of edits in the past year. Edit summaries were poor a couple years back but since corrected to almost perfect stats. Nothing to say they would wield the tools improperly, so why not? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Giving them the tools is likely to be a net positive for the project. Also, I'm not worried whatsoever about the self-requested block. Pichpich (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 14:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Positive addition to the admin corps. Dreamy candidate! (they all should be this good!) P. I. Ellsworth, ed.put'r there 15:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Questioning their experience when they have 55000 edits and 26 months of solid activity is nonsensical, IMO, and the self-requested block is a non-issue.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a safe choice with plenty of experience. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressed by some answers to questions by other users. No concerns here ~mike_gigstalkcontribs 15:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, solid contributor, will be a sensible mopster. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the concerns expressed below about activity level are irrelevant to me. An admin that may or may not use the tools often or at a consistent rate isn't a problem. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A fantastic editor who will make a fantastic admin, I see no red flags here, Also the indef request imho is nothing to worry over (Boings reply has hit the nali on the head), Anyway no issues here. –Davey2010Talk 16:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No red flags, enough experience with content creation and improvement to know how the process works, shows good sense in stepping back when necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support' I know it's kind of a cliche, but I honestly thought he was an admin already. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 17:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this is the best the opposition can come up with, it looks like we've got a great candidate. Good luck! --Tavix(talk) 18:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Qualified & seems to be in line with our mission & have good ideas where to start with admin tasks. = paul2520 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see no red flags in their background, and the one they think closest to a problem (the ND fire), they walked away from rather than digging their heels in. I think they have had sufficient experience to be given a chance, and I do not see the self-requested block as a problem: taking a break to recharge batteries is a positive step, imo. – SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose. Needs more experience and time in the trenches. Month counts are far from consistent. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the comment on months was added after my comment below, I'll also address it: in the 25 full months since October 2017, Dreamy Jazz has been "highly active" (100+ edits a month) 20/25 months. They have been active (5+ edits a month) in all 5 of the remaining months. When you have peaks of over 1,000 edits a month, 100 looks small, but by any reasonable standard they have been active for over two years. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regretfully at this time. I agree with WWGB that this editor needs a bit more time. While their AfD stats are statistically good, they are very limited. They are also woefully short on article creation, with only 20 articles, of which only a single article is above start level. But the most troubling issue I have is the recent request for an indef self-block in just March of this year. I don't think I've ever had any interaction with this editor, as our interest do not seem to overlap, but I think they should take some more time to gain experience in different WP areas. Onel5969TT me 02:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, they've been consistently editing since October 2017. That's roughly 26 months (rounding up since almost December.) For anyone curious, after about 26 months of active editing, I was a CheckUser and Oversighter, and I had passed my RfA after 14 months of active editing. This isn't some far away time period a decade ago; this was 2017 and 2018. The idea that someone needs more experience and more time after 55,000 edits and 26 months of editing is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. The self-requested block thing is a bit weird, but we've had worse behaviour from admins who are held in high-esteem by the community this year.In short, I see nothing in the above opposes that makes me want to oppose, and I consider the more experience argument at this stage to be unduly high for what amounts to advanced twinkle. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my oppose was based neither on their months of editing, nor on their number of edits. Rather it was based on their choices made during that time.Onel5969TT me 12:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The combination of recent inactivity for over three months combined with a recent self-request for an indefinite block is a red flag that this editor may burn out with the added pressures of being an administrator and end with a dramatic request for ‘deadminiship’, retirement and another self-request block. More experience and a greater time without red flag drama warning signs is needed before I could support this request for adminiship.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While we obviously want admins who are active, why don't the 2k edits in the last two months assuage any concerns about burn-out? I hardly see a slower period in the last year as a 'red flag' on its own, especially when there's no conduct/judgement concerns raised thus far. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. On contributions, Jazz would make an outstanding administrator. However, I feel their need for a block, rather than just ceasing activity, to focus on real life indicates a lack of self-control, compounded by this instance in September last year when they attempted to enforce a wikibreak until the end of the month due to exams and were back to editing the next day. – Teratix₵ 09:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I had a self-request block for 3 months once, and I also blocked myself when I decided I'd had enough of Wikipedia for good (and requested unblock a couple of years later). And on the whole, I think most people would say I did OK as an admin. If you think it's a sign of poor self-control to ask for such a block, perhaps you don't appreciate the infuriatingly addictive effect Wikipedia can have on those who are passionate about it? I personally think it shows good judgment (well, I obviously would, wouldn't I?) to recognize when you need a bit of help to focus on more important things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in general, admins act better when they are not addicted to Wikipedia to the extent they need to be blocked to focus on real life. – Teratix₵ 11:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are very possibly right, and I do sometimes think I might have done a better admin job at times had I not been so addicted. But I also see wisdom in knowing what might cause distraction and taking action on it. Anyway, I guess we judge the balance differently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per above concerns about temperament vis-à-vis the requested indef self-block.--WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regretfully. Initially I was going to be neutral because of the strength of the nominators, but I don't think it's fence-sitting time. My opposition is on the basis of a recent indefinite self-block request and then a reversal. The potential holder of a mop, for me, isn't about stats but temperament and insight. Asking for an indefinite block and then reversing within 10 days demonstrates potential problems with both. Ifnord (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral Don't have a ton of experience with this editor - I see no reason to oppose at this time, and I do question both opposes above, but I am curious as to why they have gone away for three months and then returned and how they averaged 7.3 edits an hour for the month of October 2018, so am holding here until more questions are answered. SportingFlyerT·C 04:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support; however Oppose comment are convincing as well. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose: I have interacted with Dreamy Jazz on a few occasions, and I have seen them around. It has given me a feeling that they dont like to be corrected and/or given advice to. This is just a feeling based on over-all experience. No hard evidence, except this one, where I suggested them something, and they noted it, and immediately told the bot to archive the discussion. I understand nobody is perfect. I dont expect admins or admin candidates to be perfect either. But the candidate seems to be trying to show that they are very knowledgeable/perfect. An admin should have the trait of accepting, and understanding their criticism, and listening to suggestions. The Q16 sort of highlights this issue again, which has placed me in neutral section. In general, I also get the feeling that the candidate has been making efforts solely to get the adminship, rather than editing and then getting the need for tools. Running for RfA directly after three month gap doesnt feel good either. It again shows the desire for tools, than the desire for helping the community. Candidate should have edited consistently at least for two months before RfA. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"where I suggested them something, and they noted it, and immediately told the bot to archive the discussion." Not quite. You posted the message on 28 August, they replied to you on 29 August. The correct diff you should show is this where, after DreamyJazz replies to you, you reply with a smiley 7 hours after Dreamy's reply, and 4 hours subsequently, Dreamy archives the discussion. I think it's perfectly fair to archive a discussion more than 24 hours after it has been active and especially after you have replied to it hours before. Lourdes 13:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: you are right, and this is the reason why i am outright opposing. But it still doesnt feel right given overall experince with the candiate/my observation. I dont know how to put it in words. But if this was the only incident, I wouldnt have been in neutral. Its just, a feeling from overall experience. I hope you understand what I am trying to say :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
although the nomination states "four years of solid editing", candidate made 357 edits in 2017/11, and became active since 2018/03. More info can be found here. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting point - it looks like a phrasing error by the nom (obviously it will have been read by the candidate, but as a somewhat secondary point, as a spacing/phrasing issue rather than a deceptive choice), at least from what I can see. They're fine on both edits and tenure, but might warrant a stated correction. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we have to have people arguing with every oppose? It creates such a poor atmosphere that Oppose !voters gets attacked in every RfC and Support !voters who post trite supports ("No big deal", "Why not?", etc) never get questioned over it (and I've seen people who do question those !votes get attacked for doing so). It's not about "having a discussion" in the RfC - these are people who just get attacked for having a different opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat: in a clerking capacity, I reviewed the four responses to the four oppose comments currently placed: I’m having trouble viewing them as “attacking” the participants - RfAs are still a discussion at the basic level and these counter-arguments are delivered in a calm manner (save for the word “ridiculous”, which does add a bit of heat) and mostly speak to the arguments being made, not the participants. I understand that it can be somewhat uncomfortable (and effect a chill) to have to defend one’s position (or for one’s position to be questioned) in this context, but this is the consensus process as it exists at RfA today. Speaking generally (and this should maybe move to WT:RFA), but I wonder if this “uncomfortableness” would be lessened if we attempted to separate the polling from the discussion, so specific arguments or reasons in support or opposition to the candidate would be cataloged and discussed individually in sections, and then the polling could be done separately with only brief remarks referring the “Oppose due to oppose reasons 2,4,5; reasons 3,6 are irrelevant to me; moral support due to support reasons 1,7” and no threaded discussion would occur in that section. What do you think? –xenotalk 11:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I certainly think that comments and !votes should be separated. We have people putting in a support vote, then attacking the rationale of the opposers - it's a bad look and will keep people away from contributing. I've seen people being berated for questioning the more trite support !votes, and yet a thought-out oppose (whether others agree with it or not) will automatically come under fire. Look above, a couple of people think the edit levels are not good enough to support the candidate: we don't need three people to jump on them and tell them they are wrong - they are no more right or wrong than the supporters who do not think it a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously suggested separating discussion for counter-arguments, to avoid repetitive conversation threads, and so certainly support this approach. This will make the conversation more effective and depersonalize discussion, thereby making it less confrontational. It would also be more conducive to building up a consolidated list of pros and cons, which can provide a concise recap for anyone looking to join the conversation or review what has gone on since they last participated. isaacl (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the four opposers, I definitely don't feel attacked by having a point challenged. It's a reasonable difference of opinion. – Teratix₵ 11:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) While you yourself may not feel it, there is already an attacking air for anyone who feels they do not want to support this candidate, but does not want ot be attacked for doing so. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Initial opposes at an RfA regularly recieve pushback that early supports, some of which could be challenged here, don't. It's one of the ways I've identified that help make RfA right now favorable to the candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently six supports that show insufficient or trite rationales. I know that if I press all six of those to given some decent rationale, I'll be pulled up for harassment or badgering (I've seen it happen to others when they have tried to get people to explain). One of the reasons RfA can turn into a bear pit from time to time isn't people attacking the rationales of the support votes, but those attacking the rationales of the opposes. No-one wants to see time wasting opposes or abuse of candidates, but if any opposers are going to have their opinions trashed at each and every RfC, then it will inevitably turn sour from time to time. -SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the default position is 'promote', I've previously commented in bureaucrat discussions that bare supports (and the like) will typically carry less weight in close call situations. –xenotalk 14:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why count them at all? If people are unable to leave even a basic rationale, then it's not a discussion or a consensus-weighing process, but a straight vote, which is not what this is supposed to be about. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I typically don’t heckle opposes, but I think when the initial criticism is something as ridiculous as saying someone who has over two years of experience and has never dipped below active editor status in that time does not have enough experience or that their activity is inconsistent, that does need to be pointed out lest we have a meme effect. To xeno’s point on the word ridiculous: it’s a fair description of the view that over two years is not enough time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, that's your opinion (and I think I agree that two years is sufficient), but just because someone else has a different opinion, it doesn't need people to pile in and argue the opposite. Telling them they have the "wrong" opinion seems wong. Surely they are allowed to have their opinion without people sniping at them? Or should we allo mass sniping and criticism of all votes based on all opinions? The 'crats are sufficiently proficient in weighing up whether it is a viable Oppose or not - it doesn't need everyone else souring the atmosphere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I’d make RfA a straight vote so we didn’t have to worry about any of this. I think that would be substantially more fair to everyone and would lower the temperature in the room significantly. The community has for reasons beyond me decided that it thinks RfA should be a discussion, which means that opposes tend to draw discussion if people disagree with them. I think people should be prepared to defend their view if challenged, but those challenging them also should know when to stop.Since my standard support is probably one of the 6 you mention above, in fairness I’ll expand: I don’t have much experience with Dreamy Jazz, but I’ve seen them around enough to realize they have a basic understanding of how the project works, know they’re typically pretty competent, and have never seen them behaving rudely to others or in a way that I think they will abuse the tools. If someone meets those standards, I’m fine supporting (though I typically do it in a much shorter fashion.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't necessarily thinking of yours (although it is more borderline than some others), but numbers 5, 7 and 49 are meaningless in the "discussion" sense and are just straight votes (rather than !votes). Maybe going for a straight vote is the way forward. Maybe 3 days of discussion followed by three days of straight votes would be an idea, or possibly separating the !voes from a discussion on the same page. Either way, the badgering of each opposer while the supporters leave no rationale is not conducive to a free and open discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with separating the !votes and discussion on them, as they get significantly more eyesight and means that opposition to the oppose reasoning is actually seen by anyone (not just those careful at reading everything before !voting) see it. If needs be an in-page link (similar to the ones to the talk page we do for big threaded discussions) could be put in, but that's a 2nd preference. I am happy to concede that the lack of challenging of unsupported support votes can be viewed as unfair, and I'd be perfectly happy if they were also viewed as open to discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For those opposing because of the block, please read:
People have a wide range of strategies for eliminating distractions and focusing when they need prioritize something that isn't Wikipedia. Before seeing these opposes I would have never thought a self-requested block was anything other than one more tool in that toolbox, just like unplugging the computer, shutting off the modem, setting up a local domain-based block, walking into a different room, working at a coffee shop, turning off screens, etc. I see no reason at all why requesting a block should be stigmatized while unplugging is not. People's choice of strategies to focus on real life has nothing to do with someone's "maturity" or "self-control" in the sense of being an admin. In fact, I dare say that most of our good admins would have trouble simply walking away from Wikipedia. With RfA standards where they are, some amount of addiction to Wikipedia is required.
Taking steps to separate Wikipedia from real life is a Very Good Thing. Requesting a block is no different from any other strategy for doing so. What we don't want are admins who think they can separate real life and Wikipedia and start using their tools while stressed out because they're supposed to be working on something else. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]